Power creep/bloat ruining world building.

[Cryomancer]

I always thought leveling systems created issues like this. See, the original stories (myth, legend, folklore, pulp fiction, etc) that inspired games with level systems (i.e. D&D) were never written with leveling in mind. Leveling was added to give players the sense of earned progression. When you then try to apply leveling to worlds that were never created with it in mind, then it falls apart. I don't know if there's ever anyway to have leveling make sense with any world, even if the world is made with it in mind. I think it's too much of an abstraction.

In fact, I don't think horizontal advancement is present very much in the old stories either. e.g. the Greek demigod Heracles starts out with super strength, but he doesn't become stronger or develop additional powers. He gains a few items like the hide of Nemean lion, but otherwise he seems to maintain the same power level across the various monsters he fights. Most progression that I can think of in the old tales has to do with social advancement, such as Arthur becoming king of Camelot. Anyone have a better analysis?

IF you think in classes like "professions", it makes more sense. An lv 1 magic user is a guy which learned how to use spells recently and can only do very limited and weak magic, just a tiny bit better than a lv 0 commoner. An high level caster in other hands can do much more since he learned much more and got much more power.

That said, you can't compare Heracles with an advenurer in D&D; Heracles if was an AD&D char would probably be at least lv 25 and have godlike STR(24/25)

 

[RaggleFraggle]

That said, you can't compare Heracles with an advenurer in D&D; Heracles if was an AD&D char would probably be at least lv 25 and have godlike STR(24/25)

And Gandalf is 5th level.

 

[ropetight]

I always thought leveling systems created issues like this. See, the original stories (myth, legend, folklore, pulp fiction, etc) that inspired games with level systems (i.e. D&D) were never written with leveling in mind. Leveling was added to give players the sense of earned progression. When you then try to apply leveling to worlds that were never created with it in mind, then it falls apart. I don't know if there's ever anyway to have leveling make sense with any world, even if the world is made with it in mind. I think it's too much of an abstraction.

In fact, I don't think horizontal advancement is present very much in the old stories either. e.g. the Greek demigod Heracles starts out with super strength, but he doesn't become stronger or develop additional powers. He gains a few items like the hide of Nemean lion, but otherwise he seems to maintain the same power level across the various monsters he fights. Most progression that I can think of in the old tales has to do with social advancement, such as Arthur becoming king of Camelot. Anyone have a better analysis?

IF you think in classes like "professions", it makes more sense. An lv 1 magic user is a guy which learned how to use spells recently and can only do very limited and weak magic, just a tiny bit better than a lv 0 commoner. An high level caster in other hands can do much more since he learned much more and got much more power.

That said, you can't compare Heracles with an advenurer in D&D; Heracles if was an AD&D char would probably be at least lv 25 and have godlike STR(24/25)

Tales about gods are not good base for progression based games.
They are more about finding hero's limits.

On the other hand, all the tales that you can describe as Hero's Journey (Beowulf, Slavic folk tales) are more suitable.
They usually start with protagonist who is average, even weak at the beginning, but they rise to the challenge and change the world around them.

For example, Slavic folk tales are full of grind.
There is seven mountains, forests, valleys and in every one of them there is bunch of bastards after which you get to final boss.
Hero progression is not explicitly described, but he is definitely more experienced after the adventure which often lasts decades or lifetime.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koschei

Or there are three brothers that are making the same playthrough with different choices.

 

[Cryomancer]

And Gandalf is 5th level.

He not only is proficient with swords but also fights with an staff and an sword and is quite good in melee too. So, he has some levels in fighter too. Also fought and own against an Balrog. Which is equivalent to an Balor. Any character which can goes toe to toe and survive against an Balor is not low level.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

That said, you can't compare Heracles with an advenurer in D&D; Heracles if was an AD&D char would probably be at least lv 25 and have godlike STR(24/25)

And Gandalf is 5th level.

Always had an issue with this because it's overlooking the obvious. We can conclude this is false because he beat a Balrog(known in D&D as Balrog before being renamed to Balor) in single combat.
As Balors were explicitly based on Balrogs and came after LotR, we must conclude that they were -- and the game itself -- designed with this in mind. Based on this, we can further conclude that Gandalf was likely at least as powerful as a demon prince in D&D terms. In Deities & Demigods, the demon princes are considered to be lesser deities(pg. 105 in the Cthulhu edition)

The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, we don't know what Gandalf is entirely capable of beyond what feats he provably accomplished.

 

[RaggleFraggle]

That said, you can't compare Heracles with an advenurer in D&D; Heracles if was an AD&D char would probably be at least lv 25 and have godlike STR(24/25)

And Gandalf is 5th level.

Always had an issue with this because it's overlooking the obvious. We can conclude this is false because he beat a Balrog(known in D&D as Balrog before being renamed to Balor) in single combat.
As Balors were explicitly based on Balrogs and came after LotR, we must conclude that they were -- and the game itself -- designed with this in mind. Based on this, we can further conclude that Gandalf was likely at least as powerful as a demon prince in D&D terms. In Deities & Demigods, the demon princes are considered to be lesser deities(pg. 105 in the Cthulhu edition)

The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, we don't know what Gandalf is entirely capable of beyond what feats he provably accomplished.

I said that in jest to point out how retroactively applying game rules to myths produces silly results.

The ancient Greeks didn't conceive of Hercules as an epic/immortal level character, he was a baseline hero.

 

[gurugeorge]

I always thought leveling systems created issues like this. See, the original stories (myth, legend, folklore, pulp fiction, etc) that inspired games with level systems (i.e. D&D) were never written with leveling in mind. Leveling was added to give players the sense of earned progression. When you then try to apply leveling to worlds that were never created with it in mind, then it falls apart. I don't know if there's ever anyway to have leveling make sense with any world, even if the world is made with it in mind. I think it's too much of an abstraction.

In fact, I don't think horizontal advancement is present very much in the old stories either. e.g. the Greek demigod Heracles starts out with super strength, but he doesn't become stronger or develop additional powers. He gains a few items like the hide of Nemean lion, but otherwise he seems to maintain the same power level across the various monsters he fights. Most progression that I can think of in the old tales has to do with social advancement, such as Arthur becoming king of Camelot. Anyone have a better analysis?

I think vertical leveling actually makes sense only in terms of a social convention in the virtual world - like, when you gain sufficient experience, your peers (your adventuring peers, your wizard peers, your paladin peers, etc.) welcome you in their ranks, and as you get more and more experience, you move up in their esteem, and you rise in rank. I think that's the only thing that class/progression represent that would make sense.

For that to make sense in a virtual world context, that ought to mean you have greater access to certain treats - IOW, it's more or less like a faction as it's used in some games. But within a class, it would mean you get taught cool and recondite tricks by your superiors (horizontal progression).

But vertical progression (progression in physique, reflexes, the fruition of innate talents and abilities, etc.) is usually quite big in the beginning, but levels off, hits diminishing returns. Being recognized by your peers and given access to new treats and tricks, cant' magically make you stronger, faster, etc., beyond a certain point (I guess unless magic is specifically involved).

All of which means: vertical progress should be quite sizeable initially (like the relatively big gains you get when you start exercise) and through to about the middle of the game, but hit diminishing returns, and meanwhile horizontal progression, not so important at the beginning, should loom larger towards the end of the game. That makes sense of the whole thing, and gives the newbie the feeling of fast progress in the beginning (feeling more mighty) to retain their interest by rewarding them early on, while keeping the game interesting as you progress (more toys to play with and integrate into your gameplay).

 

[Mr. Magniloquent]

And Gandalf is 5th level.

He not only is proficient with swords but also fights with an staff and an sword and is quite good in melee too. So, he has some levels in fighter too. Also fought and own against an Balrog. Which is equivalent to an Balor. Any character which can goes toe to toe and survive against an Balor is not low level.

Gandalf is a level 1 Sorcerer, 3 Druid, 16 Fighter

 

[Mr. Magniloquent]

I solved power bloat by going the Deadlands route. Instead of adding constants, you add dice. Roll XdY, take highest.

A novice savant might be 1d8 in a skill. But a veteran with ordinary ability is 3d6. The novice savant has greater potential, but is highly inconsistent. They lack experience/training. The veteran has no remarkable talent, but is well honed. They will be vastly more consistent while still being able to trip on their shoelaces, unlikely as it is.

Its good for simulating adverse conditions or debuffs. Casting a spell in a hurricane? Remove dice for a circumstance penalty. Remove enough and instead of taking the highest, now start taking the lowest. In a calm prepared laboratory? Add a die.

Its an excellent mechanic. D&D 5E started down the proper path with advantage/disadvantage, but didn't take it far enough because they are captive to the D20.

 

[ropetight]

I always thought leveling systems created issues like this. See, the original stories (myth, legend, folklore, pulp fiction, etc) that inspired games with level systems (i.e. D&D) were never written with leveling in mind. Leveling was added to give players the sense of earned progression. When you then try to apply leveling to worlds that were never created with it in mind, then it falls apart. I don't know if there's ever anyway to have leveling make sense with any world, even if the world is made with it in mind. I think it's too much of an abstraction.

In fact, I don't think horizontal advancement is present very much in the old stories either. e.g. the Greek demigod Heracles starts out with super strength, but he doesn't become stronger or develop additional powers. He gains a few items like the hide of Nemean lion, but otherwise he seems to maintain the same power level across the various monsters he fights. Most progression that I can think of in the old tales has to do with social advancement, such as Arthur becoming king of Camelot. Anyone have a better analysis?

I think vertical leveling actually makes sense only in terms of a social convention in the virtual world - like, when you gain sufficient experience, your peers (your adventuring peers, your wizard peers, your paladin peers, etc.) welcome you in their ranks, and as you get more and more experience, you move up in their esteem, and you rise in rank. I think that's the only thing that class/progression represent that would make sense.

For that to make sense in a virtual world context, that ought to mean you have greater access to certain treats - IOW, it's more or less like a faction as it's used in some games. But within a class, it would mean you get taught cool and recondite tricks by your superiors (horizontal progression).

But vertical progression (progression in physique, reflexes, the fruition of innate talents and abilities, etc.) is usually quite big in the beginning, but levels off, hits diminishing returns. Being recognized by your peers and given access to new treats and tricks, cant' magically make you stronger, faster, etc., beyond a certain point (I guess unless magic is specifically involved).

All of which means: vertical progress should be quite sizeable initially (like the relatively big gains you get when you start exercise) and through to about the middle of the game, but hit diminishing returns, and meanwhile horizontal progression, not so important at the beginning, should loom larger towards the end of the game. That makes sense of the whole thing, and gives the newbie the feeling of fast progress in the beginning (feeling more mighty) to retain their interest by rewarding them early on, while keeping the game interesting as you progress (more toys to play with and integrate into your gameplay).

If you want to model reality, there is always a question what separates epic, or world-class talent and professionals from the rest.
Athletes, especially in martial arts are good example.

Besides equipment and dedication, in most cases top guys have less weak sides, and have couple of killer upsides.
They are making more right decisions, are able to adapt and to hide their weaknesses.
Making later progress dependent on right decisions and specialization (experts in M&M and subclasses in DnD) seems right to me.

Top athletes attract great trainers (learning tricks of your superiors you mentioned) and sidekicks.
Moment in which experienced companions join your party because they see future greatness in your character is one of my favorite moments in RPGs.
Recognition from some hard boiled veteran - better feeling than stat inflation, IMHO!

Level-up dopamine rush gets weaker with time, not only because you gain levels slower, you get used to it - but I'm not much of a gambling addict or MMO player.
Basically, after montage there shouldn't be more dramatic increase in stats.
So you need something else as motivator for player - horizontal progression you mentioned coupled with better gear and sense of accomplishment after beating harder tasks should be enough.

 

[ropetight]

I solved power bloat by going the Deadlands route. Instead of adding constants, you add dice. Roll XdY, take highest.

A novice savant might be 1d8 in a skill. But a veteran with ordinary ability is 3d6. The novice savant has greater potential, but is highly inconsistent. They lack experience/training. The veteran has no remarkable talent, but is well honed. They will be vastly more consistent while still being able to trip on their shoelaces, unlikely as it is.

Its good for simulating adverse conditions or debuffs. Casting a spell in a hurricane? Remove dice for a circumstance penalty. Remove enough and instead of taking the highest, now start taking the lowest. In a calm prepared laboratory? Add a die.

Its an excellent mechanic. D&D 5E started down the proper path with advantage/disadvantage, but didn't take it far enough because they are captive to the D20.

Some time ago my friends & me played very simple tabletop system based on adding and removing d6 in a similar way, but I can't remember its name.
It was fantasy system, so not one of Fria Ligan systems.

 

[KörangarTheMighty]

In terms of narrative, Vitiate in TOR is good example. A massively overpowered God-emperor. Exponentially more powerful than Ragnos or Sadow from the Great Hyperspace War, to the point where it was retarded that he hadn't just outright dominated them when he was shoehorned into their time period. More powerful than even the planet-gobbling Nihilus in TSL, with none of his weaknesses.

I still remember the overdose of cringe I had when I first read this dialogue:

"If you kill everyone in the galaxy, you'll be Emperor of nothing. What's the point of all this?"
"You discern a fraction of reality. Beyond these stars exist other galaxies, other worlds, other beings. I will experience or ignore them as I wish. I will spend eternity becoming everything: a farmer, an artist, a simple man. When the last living thing in the universe finally dies, I will enjoy peace and wait for the cycle to begin again."

Writers, stop doing this shit. You're not impressing anyone with the childish "my villain can beat up your villain" nonsense.

 

[Delterius]

Always had an issue with this because it's overlooking the obvious. We can conclude this is false because he beat a Balrog(known in D&D as Balrog before being renamed to Balor) in single comba

Easy. The balrogs in middle earth have a different state block as well

 

[Cryomancer]

Fixed hp > Small hp gains > hp and damage growing together > getting much more hp than damage like Woketard's 5E and Oblivion.

 

[FriendlyMerchant]

Systems without levels tends to have much less power creep.

The Age of Decadence didn't have levels or class and there was no power creep. Th end game boss could still smack you down even if you completely invested in combat skills.

I think the key was not levels, but the fixed HP.

A good combat-focused character could become kickass and be able to kill multiple dangerous and armed opponents, but in a believably badass way. Even if you can kill Ol' A, you could conceivably still get killed by multiple armed opponents charging you at once and using things like Bolas and bombs to weaken your character.

The final boss also had really high defense and attack stats and can stunlock with no way to prevent it you unless you use a certain item before awakening him. If you take the route where you side with him, you get to see how trivial the average guy is compared to a character who spent the last few months equipping themselves with the finest gear and killing their way through the area when all those legionaries were practically doing nothing but standing around on guard duty or camping up to that point with little more than a few kills in a battle if they were lucky and no more than basic training.

The final boss and a few enemies in AoD were what they should be; very rare or one-of-a-kind enemies. Meanwhile everyone else didn't suddenly get more hp or skills to match your progression and jobs to your character if he's good enough at combat.

 

[NecroLord]

In terms of narrative, Vitiate in TOR is good example. A massively overpowered God-emperor. Exponentially more powerful than Ragnos or Sadow from the Great Hyperspace War, to the point where it was retarded that he hadn't just outright dominated them when he was shoehorned into their time period. More powerful than even the planet-gobbling Nihilus in TSL, with none of his weaknesses.

I still remember the overdose of cringe I had when I first read this dialogue:

"If you kill everyone in the galaxy, you'll be Emperor of nothing. What's the point of all this?"
"You discern a fraction of reality. Beyond these stars exist other galaxies, other worlds, other beings. I will experience or ignore them as I wish. I will spend eternity becoming everything: a farmer, an artist, a simple man. When the last living thing in the universe finally dies, I will enjoy peace and wait for the cycle to begin again."

Writers, stop doing this shit. You're not impressing anyone with the childish "my villain can beat up your villain" nonsense.

Yeah,some of the EU Sith Lords tend to be like that.
Of course,there are some well written ones too,like Darth Traya,Malgus,Nihilus,Revan.

 

[Lhynn]

Systems without levels tends to have much less power creep.

The Age of Decadence didn't have levels or class and there was no power creep. Th end game boss could still smack you down even if you completely invested in combat skills.

I think the key was not levels, but the fixed HP.

A good combat-focused character could become kickass and be able to kill multiple dangerous and armed opponents, but in a believably badass way. Even if you can kill Ol' A, you could conceivably still get killed by multiple armed opponents charging you at once and using things like Bolas and bombs to weaken your character.

I dont think AoD is a good example. The game is very on rails. Sure, it offers a plethora of tracks, but at each stage the devs knew exactly how strong you would be. Also there was no magic to throw things out of whack.

Lone wolf books were built more organically than AoD was.

 

[zapotec]

I actually like it quite a bit when you can achieve levels of power no human should have a right to. DnD 2nd Edition did this better than anyone though. You didn't achieve 20,000 HP by maximum level, nor did you have -200 Thac0, but your powers became truly superhuman nonetheless.

True true, here Szass Tam stats in AD&D

And here the same character in the third edition

The worst offender is the AC, in AD&D a 20 level fighter would have a 95%/95% chance to hit him, while in the third edition he would have around 55%/30%/10%/5% chance to him!(I am not counting various bonus)

 

[NecroLord]

I actually like it quite a bit when you can achieve levels of power no human should have a right to. DnD 2nd Edition did this better than anyone though. You didn't achieve 20,000 HP by maximum level, nor did you have -200 Thac0, but your powers became truly superhuman nonetheless.

True true, here Szass Tam stats in AD&D

And here the same character in the third edition

The worst offender is the AC, in AD&D a 20 level fighter would have a 95%/95% chance to hit him, while in the third edition he would have around 55%/30%/10%/5% chance to him!(I am not counting various bonus)

That's from the Epic Level Handbook,right?
Monsters tend to have enormous AC,but at Epic Level,all game balance is thrown out the window. A well designed party of adventurers will absolutely demolish any opposition.

 

[zapotec]

I actually like it quite a bit when you can achieve levels of power no human should have a right to. DnD 2nd Edition did this better than anyone though. You didn't achieve 20,000 HP by maximum level, nor did you have -200 Thac0, but your powers became truly superhuman nonetheless.

True true, here Szass Tam stats in AD&D

And here the same character in the third edition

The worst offender is the AC, in AD&D a 20 level fighter would have a 95%/95% chance to hit him, while in the third edition he would have around 55%/30%/10%/5% chance to him!(I am not counting various bonus)

That's from the Epic Level Handbook,right?
Monsters tend to have enormous AC,but at Epic Level,all game balance is thrown out the window. A well designed party of adventurers will absolutely demolish any opposition.

The third edition Szass Tam is from the Forgotten Realms Setting book, the Sszass Tam from Epic Level Handbook is a bit more stronger (An hp bloat of +80)

 

[RPK]

I actually like it quite a bit when you can achieve levels of power no human should have a right to. DnD 2nd Edition did this better than anyone though. You didn't achieve 20,000 HP by maximum level, nor did you have -200 Thac0, but your powers became truly superhuman nonetheless.

True true, here Szass Tam stats in AD&D


And here the same character in the third edition




The worst offender is the AC, in AD&D a 20 level fighter would have a 95%/95% chance to hit him, while in the third edition he would have around 55%/30%/10%/5% chance to him!(I am not counting various bonus)

I know you say you're not counting various bonuses, but you're not being fair here. A 3e fighter is going to have far better than 55/whatever chance to hit him. at level 20, he has +20 base attack bonus, so, yeah, he has to roll a 9 if he has no other bonuses. But, at level 20, you can assume he's going to have base strength of at least around 18 for another +4. Probably at the very minimum +3 from whatever weapon he's using. That gets you pretty close to 95%. If he's using a plain Jane +5 weapon, which by level 20, he should have access to, then his first attack is 95% to hit, assuming he had mid-teens starting strength took at least a couple of points of strength for attribute increases and has some sort of strength magic item. All reasonable assumptions at level 20 in 3rd edition.

If he has any brains at all, he'll also have various weapon focus feats etc.